The trial-within-a-trial in the case of alleged criminal kingpin Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and four co-accused was adjourned in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Friday after the defence failed to produce a South African Police Service (SAPS) National Instruction it had relied on during the cross-examination of a State witness.
The proceedings form part of a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether evidence obtained following the arrest of first accused Musa Kekana in April 2024 is admissible. Kekana was arrested hours after the killing of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart.
Matlala’s attorney, Advocate Annelene van den Heever, questioned State witness Captain Phimi Sekgobela on whether police had followed prescribed SAPS procedures when processing the crime scene where Kekana was arrested.
During cross-examination, Van den Heever argued that once an area is declared a crime scene, police are required to secure it immediately and maintain a record of everyone entering and leaving the scene.
“A place is designated as a crime scene, it needs to be cordoned off immediately. A crime scene manager needs to take charge of the crime scene and at that point there needs to be a logbook or an attendance register kept, signing in who goes in, who comes out, and the time they go in and the time they go out at all relevant times, correct?” she asked.
Judge Cassim Moosa intervened and asked Van den Heever to clarify her line of questioning and produce the SAPS National Instruction on which she was relying so that the witness could properly respond.
The defence subsequently requested Captain Sekgobela’s official diary, along with other documents relating to Kekana’s arrest.
The court then adjourned the proceedings.
Captain Sekgobela is expected to remain on the witness stand when the matter resumes on Monday.
The trial-within-a-trial will ultimately determine whether evidence obtained during Kekana’s arrest can be admitted in the main trial against Matlala and his co-accused.
The admissibility of the evidence could prove significant to the State’s case as the court considers whether police followed the required procedures during the arrest and processing of the crime scene.
